who the frack cares what a college student has to say?
I do when that college student has a PhD in Molecular Biophysics and Chemistry, was lead bioinformatics scientist at a pharmaceutical company, and goes to the most prestigious law school in the United States (possibly world). (Source: http://www.seringhaus.net/bio.html)
This entire presentation seems a little disappointing. Really, it looks, acts, and feels like a giant iPod Touch. Whereas the iPhone and iPod really created a need , I don't see that this substantially innovate to make it a must-have. It doesn't seem to improve on anything so substantially that it is an obvious choice. Maybe I need to see a few more videos, but I don't see this pulling serious market share away from Kindle's targeted market segment.
The Wikipedia page for Coalinga, California (where I assume this is taking place) estimates the 2007 population at just over 18,000 people. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalinga,_California). It seems that the paper involved, the Hanford Sentinel, services all of King County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings_County,_California) which has a little over 150,000 people total. Granted, I am sure the LA Times or some other large circulation paper could condemn them, I doubt they cater to the same audience as those subscribing to a small-town oriented paper like the Sentinel.
Still, I agree with your point - people need to shun this circulation for its lack of journalistic integrity. Sadly, there aren't a lot of competitors (to my knowledge - someone have better knowledge?) to wag their finger at them.
I honestly haven't looked at the detailed facts of the case so I can't say whether or not I disagree with you or not. I'm just citing the reason given by the Justices.
The reason the officials were not held responsible is because of an idea called qualified immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity) which essentially states that public officials cannot be held personally responsible for actions they undertake as part of their public duty and which, if illegal or unconstitutional, must clearly be illegal or unconstitutional.
It is interesting to note that the two Justices that dissented regarding whether or not the school officials were covered by qualified immunity were Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and that Justice Souter was a part of the majority. If Sotomayor is placed on the bench, it is feasible she would rule much closer to Justice Ginsburg and Stevens then to Souter on these types of matters.
1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's actions File sharing with the intent to avoid paying for a product or help others circumvent paying for a product is, at least to some degree, reprehensible. (I am assuming objectivity and being reasonable.) However, from the facts of this particular case, it doesn't seem that the act is so blatantly reprehensible that it warrants a life-sentence worth of monetary damages.
2) the disparity between the harm to the plaintiff and the punitive award This seems huge to me. Though I don't have the facts on this case and might judge differently if I did, it seems that the RIAA will have an incredibly hard time showing that the damages they incurred are even one a hundredth of the punitive damages. The 24 songs this woman had available would have to have been WIDELY disseminated to reach that kind of number. It will be interesting to see what kind of evidence they produce to address this question.
3) the similarity or difference between the punitive award and civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable situations. This is where the Eighth Amendment has tangential application. (None that takes direct legal effect, but still affects the approach that the courts' take.) This is obviously an incredibly excessive fine. Punitive damages, as the name obviously indicates, act to "punish" the individual for bad behavior. Two-million dollars as punishment for twenty-four files could very easily be considered excessive, egregious, unconscionable, or any other term for "whacked out" that I can think of.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." One line says it all. I can't see this standing when it is appealed. Twenty-four music files being available for download, whether it's wrong or not, does not warrant what is effectually a life-sentence worth of money.
I am very interested to see whether or not use of the Wii could result in either preventing Parkinson's or delaying it significantly. Obviously there isn't any data available at this point on such theory, but I think 20 to 30 years down the road it would be interesting to see what happens to people who regularly used Wii and future Wii-like consoles.
Of course, since IIANDoctor, I have no idea on the science behind that. Anyone know whether or not that's feasible?
While I don't espouse this particular idea (nor do I argue against it), the boy may see a difference between art and entertainment. Generally, video games are classified as popular entertainment that uses technical skills commonly employed in arts, but video games themselves are not considered art. However, movies are commonly considered an art form which also is employed as entertainment.
Like I said, I'm not for or against that idea, but it seems like a logical distinction and could account for his preference.
Does anyone have information on how the dog distinguishes between the CDs physically? I would assume that there is some chemical difference in the materials that the CDs are composed of. Does anyone have a link or info on this?
I can see your point, but I think the only circumstances that it would happen is not Hulu "work[ing] with" Boxee, but instead buying them out or co-opting them. Hulu wants the ability to exclude people or devices from their service at will. Having that type of power allows them to use proprietary formats or hardware to deliver content. If Boxee exists, Hulu would have a much tougher time creating revenue off of new devices which do exactly the same thing as Boxee.
Even though people will always be able to murder, steal, cheat, lie, etc. That does not mean we should consider all efforts to stop illicit activities as fruitless. I am proud of Craigslist for taking a step in the right direction and working to police themselves. Similarly, I'm proud of the authorities for working to enforce the laws that legislatures have passed.
Though I don't have numbers immediately available to back it up, income is significantly lower unless a "soft major" (read as: social sciences) attends graduate school. Those students which graduate in Political Science, Sociology, Psychology, etc. are faced with very low incomes or no job with only a Bachelor's for the most part. Engineering, Accounting, and even "Ology" majors see a much higher placement and pay right out of graduate school.
I know that in admissions to many of the law schools I am applying to, a 3.8 in History and a 3.3 in Mechanical Engineering are comparable grades to the admissions committees. The inflated GPA which soft majors enjoy really does little except possibly inflate ego. And as an Econ major, I can tell you that me and my fellow soft major comrades already had inflated egos as is... it's sad really.
Quote: "In social science.5 is huuge!"
Reply: I respectfully disagree. r^2 =.5 is a good correlation, but it is not huge, even in the social sciences. Not to mention that in a study such as this one, there are some serious lurking variables which are most likely not accounted for. If you were to control beer drinking with another variable (say, time spent in the office or some other better variable), I would dare say the t-stat would be entirely insignificant.
Quote: "so if these findings actually show causation (which, admittedly,I they might not)"...
Reply: They definitely do not show causation. This is an observational study, not an experiment. No observational study can show causation, only correlation. To determine causation, experiments using factorial design and variable controlling techniques are a must.
Except that it's completely different.
One is obscenity while the other obscenity with public dissent. Neither is permitted, but normal dissent is entirely legal. ABC, NBC, and other networks are publicly broadcast. They are the television equivalent of putting a flier in a door. As a result, the government puts limits on what people can or can't put on a door. (If someone goes around putting pornography on everyone's door, he'll get arrested. If other people, in private settings, ask him for the pornography, they can legally obtain it.)
The line of the original logic also follows that, "If they take away my right to sleep with an 8 year old, they can also take away my right to sleep with my wife." In theory, they could make laws against it, but in the society we've built, there is a certain understanding of there is a line.
I'm not going to argue that censorship is legitimate or necessary, but if you don't like censorship, pay for channels (HBO, Showtime, etc.) which do not have censorship. You still have options, albeit options you may not like. Censoring expletives does not so radically limit your rights that any court will side with the "You are taking away my God-given privileges" argument.
He's not worried about rocket fuel or demonstrating power. He's looking at the countdown on his presidency and he is realizing, "Hmm... I only have 11 months to blow up something again... let's do it in space this time..." It's the international equivalent of putting an M2 in the toilet.
The guy asserting that the internet causes pedophiles is probably taking things a little too far, but a lot of people here are dismissing this notion entirely. (Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.)
There are probably many factors which go into a person becoming so imbalanced that he becomes a pedophile. Genetics probably play a role, social development definitely plays a role, and there are a bunch of other factors which most likely contribute to the behavior. Among them is most likely the relative ease and lack of punitive measures that potential pedophiles face in committing their crimes. For instance, if there a group of police watching their own children at a playground, it is unlikely a pedophile will come in and solicit one of the children. However, if our potential pedophile is introduced to child pornography in his own home without repercussion, he or she is more likely to not only view it, but to develop a further need for it and become deeper entrenched in it. (I'm sure I can dig up three or four journal articles on how pornography can be a developing process as well as addictive.)
I think the assertions are a bit broad as well, but it is equally broad to dismiss all of it. Something ought to be done in order to prevent that type of material from becoming so easily available to any person with a high-speed connection.
Which school do you attend and could they possible convince other universities to take this approach? Genius. People won't change unless it's economically in their interest to do so. This makes it that way.
Slashdot Mirror
I do when that college student has a PhD in Molecular Biophysics and Chemistry, was lead bioinformatics scientist at a pharmaceutical company, and goes to the most prestigious law school in the United States (possibly world). (Source: http://www.seringhaus.net/bio.html)
You really shot yourself in the foot with that non-first post, didn't you?
This entire presentation seems a little disappointing. Really, it looks, acts, and feels like a giant iPod Touch. Whereas the iPhone and iPod really created a need , I don't see that this substantially innovate to make it a must-have. It doesn't seem to improve on anything so substantially that it is an obvious choice. Maybe I need to see a few more videos, but I don't see this pulling serious market share away from Kindle's targeted market segment.
I think the practical application is that it gets rid of bugs and it tells the time.
The Wikipedia page for Coalinga, California (where I assume this is taking place) estimates the 2007 population at just over 18,000 people. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalinga,_California). It seems that the paper involved, the Hanford Sentinel, services all of King County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings_County,_California) which has a little over 150,000 people total. Granted, I am sure the LA Times or some other large circulation paper could condemn them, I doubt they cater to the same audience as those subscribing to a small-town oriented paper like the Sentinel.
Still, I agree with your point - people need to shun this circulation for its lack of journalistic integrity. Sadly, there aren't a lot of competitors (to my knowledge - someone have better knowledge?) to wag their finger at them.
I honestly haven't looked at the detailed facts of the case so I can't say whether or not I disagree with you or not. I'm just citing the reason given by the Justices.
The reason the officials were not held responsible is because of an idea called qualified immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity) which essentially states that public officials cannot be held personally responsible for actions they undertake as part of their public duty and which, if illegal or unconstitutional, must clearly be illegal or unconstitutional.
It is interesting to note that the two Justices that dissented regarding whether or not the school officials were covered by qualified immunity were Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and that Justice Souter was a part of the majority. If Sotomayor is placed on the bench, it is feasible she would rule much closer to Justice Ginsburg and Stevens then to Souter on these types of matters.
1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's actions
File sharing with the intent to avoid paying for a product or help others circumvent paying for a product is, at least to some degree, reprehensible. (I am assuming objectivity and being reasonable.) However, from the facts of this particular case, it doesn't seem that the act is so blatantly reprehensible that it warrants a life-sentence worth of monetary damages.
2) the disparity between the harm to the plaintiff and the punitive award
This seems huge to me. Though I don't have the facts on this case and might judge differently if I did, it seems that the RIAA will have an incredibly hard time showing that the damages they incurred are even one a hundredth of the punitive damages. The 24 songs this woman had available would have to have been WIDELY disseminated to reach that kind of number. It will be interesting to see what kind of evidence they produce to address this question.
3) the similarity or difference between the punitive award and civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable situations.
This is where the Eighth Amendment has tangential application. (None that takes direct legal effect, but still affects the approach that the courts' take.) This is obviously an incredibly excessive fine. Punitive damages, as the name obviously indicates, act to "punish" the individual for bad behavior. Two-million dollars as punishment for twenty-four files could very easily be considered excessive, egregious, unconscionable, or any other term for "whacked out" that I can think of.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." One line says it all. I can't see this standing when it is appealed. Twenty-four music files being available for download, whether it's wrong or not, does not warrant what is effectually a life-sentence worth of money.
Nothing new here, unless you have a relative who struggles with Parkinson's and you have more hope for helping the crippling symptoms subside a bit.
I am very interested to see whether or not use of the Wii could result in either preventing Parkinson's or delaying it significantly. Obviously there isn't any data available at this point on such theory, but I think 20 to 30 years down the road it would be interesting to see what happens to people who regularly used Wii and future Wii-like consoles.
Of course, since IIANDoctor, I have no idea on the science behind that. Anyone know whether or not that's feasible?
While I don't espouse this particular idea (nor do I argue against it), the boy may see a difference between art and entertainment. Generally, video games are classified as popular entertainment that uses technical skills commonly employed in arts, but video games themselves are not considered art. However, movies are commonly considered an art form which also is employed as entertainment.
Like I said, I'm not for or against that idea, but it seems like a logical distinction and could account for his preference.
Does anyone have information on how the dog distinguishes between the CDs physically? I would assume that there is some chemical difference in the materials that the CDs are composed of. Does anyone have a link or info on this?
Also startling is that Titus appears to be a body-builder in addition to being a proselytizer with St. Paul. -Bryan Gividen
I can see your point, but I think the only circumstances that it would happen is not Hulu "work[ing] with" Boxee, but instead buying them out or co-opting them. Hulu wants the ability to exclude people or devices from their service at will. Having that type of power allows them to use proprietary formats or hardware to deliver content. If Boxee exists, Hulu would have a much tougher time creating revenue off of new devices which do exactly the same thing as Boxee.
Even though people will always be able to murder, steal, cheat, lie, etc. That does not mean we should consider all efforts to stop illicit activities as fruitless. I am proud of Craigslist for taking a step in the right direction and working to police themselves. Similarly, I'm proud of the authorities for working to enforce the laws that legislatures have passed.
Though I don't have numbers immediately available to back it up, income is significantly lower unless a "soft major" (read as: social sciences) attends graduate school. Those students which graduate in Political Science, Sociology, Psychology, etc. are faced with very low incomes or no job with only a Bachelor's for the most part. Engineering, Accounting, and even "Ology" majors see a much higher placement and pay right out of graduate school.
I know that in admissions to many of the law schools I am applying to, a 3.8 in History and a 3.3 in Mechanical Engineering are comparable grades to the admissions committees. The inflated GPA which soft majors enjoy really does little except possibly inflate ego. And as an Econ major, I can tell you that me and my fellow soft major comrades already had inflated egos as is... it's sad really.
Quote: "In social science .5 is huuge!"
Reply: I respectfully disagree. r^2 = .5 is a good correlation, but it is not huge, even in the social sciences. Not to mention that in a study such as this one, there are some serious lurking variables which are most likely not accounted for. If you were to control beer drinking with another variable (say, time spent in the office or some other better variable), I would dare say the t-stat would be entirely insignificant.
Quote: "so if these findings actually show causation (which, admittedly,I they might not)"...
Reply: They definitely do not show causation. This is an observational study, not an experiment. No observational study can show causation, only correlation. To determine causation, experiments using factorial design and variable controlling techniques are a must.
Except that it's completely different. One is obscenity while the other obscenity with public dissent. Neither is permitted, but normal dissent is entirely legal. ABC, NBC, and other networks are publicly broadcast. They are the television equivalent of putting a flier in a door. As a result, the government puts limits on what people can or can't put on a door. (If someone goes around putting pornography on everyone's door, he'll get arrested. If other people, in private settings, ask him for the pornography, they can legally obtain it.) The line of the original logic also follows that, "If they take away my right to sleep with an 8 year old, they can also take away my right to sleep with my wife." In theory, they could make laws against it, but in the society we've built, there is a certain understanding of there is a line.
I'm not going to argue that censorship is legitimate or necessary, but if you don't like censorship, pay for channels (HBO, Showtime, etc.) which do not have censorship. You still have options, albeit options you may not like. Censoring expletives does not so radically limit your rights that any court will side with the "You are taking away my God-given privileges" argument.
Appropriately, the trolls of Slashdot also have their roots in genes of Neaderthals being passed on.
He's not worried about rocket fuel or demonstrating power. He's looking at the countdown on his presidency and he is realizing, "Hmm... I only have 11 months to blow up something again... let's do it in space this time..." It's the international equivalent of putting an M2 in the toilet.
The guy asserting that the internet causes pedophiles is probably taking things a little too far, but a lot of people here are dismissing this notion entirely. (Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.) There are probably many factors which go into a person becoming so imbalanced that he becomes a pedophile. Genetics probably play a role, social development definitely plays a role, and there are a bunch of other factors which most likely contribute to the behavior. Among them is most likely the relative ease and lack of punitive measures that potential pedophiles face in committing their crimes. For instance, if there a group of police watching their own children at a playground, it is unlikely a pedophile will come in and solicit one of the children. However, if our potential pedophile is introduced to child pornography in his own home without repercussion, he or she is more likely to not only view it, but to develop a further need for it and become deeper entrenched in it. (I'm sure I can dig up three or four journal articles on how pornography can be a developing process as well as addictive.) I think the assertions are a bit broad as well, but it is equally broad to dismiss all of it. Something ought to be done in order to prevent that type of material from becoming so easily available to any person with a high-speed connection.
Which school do you attend and could they possible convince other universities to take this approach? Genius. People won't change unless it's economically in their interest to do so. This makes it that way.
Need I say more?